This comparison we believe will interest enquirers after facts, while those whose vision is obscured by a total eclipse of either game, will “skip” to something more interesting. The “base” in the National game corresponds with the “run” in cricket, and is ninety feet long; the distance between wickets is sixty-six feet, but between creases which is the length of a run, the distance is fifty-eight feet, or thirty-two feet shorter than a base. The average runner of a “base” must consume enough additional time to cover the added distance. Supposing that two and one-half seconds is required by the runner of the base, only one and one-half seconds is consumed by the cricketer in making his run. This difference in “time” means a preponderating advantage to the fielder upon the diamond, and a corresponding one to the batsman in cricket. The public, chiefly for this reason, has pronounced upon the sloth of cricketers, and the rapidity of those who play base ball. The unthinking spectator concludes that cricketers are sleepy, while fielders upon the diamond are consiantly performing feats of wonder. The cricketer makes his run of only fifty-eight feet with ease and almost certainty if he uses fair discretion, while the striker of a base ball must attempt his “run” though bitter experience tells him that it is an impossibility. It will at once be seen that the runner of the compulsary long “base” is almost handicapped out of the race by the cricketer who makes a discretionary short “run.”
The baseball fielder has been given tremendious “time,” advantages over the cricket fielder by the long base as well as by the “forced” run. These advantages are increased by the construction of the diamond, which “fouls off” three-quarters of the field, thereby permitting eight fielders to be placed almost elbow to elbow in front of the doomed batter. “Side out” has become such a forgone conclusion that changes in the rules must follow, if interest in the game is expected from the public.
Many features of the game of single wicket cricket correspond with base ball. The efforts of the batter are, limited to hits forward of the wicket, while the run is one hundred and twenty-four feet, but this style of cricket has become obsolete, owing to the same objections which exist in base ball, and has given place to double wicket cricket. There the impartial observer will find no undue advantage given either to batter, fielder or bowler. But if a game is played between cricketers of like standard, every department is in strict equiblirum, while opportunities are offered to skillful performers unknown in base ball. Some misguided lovers of American cricket have tried to popularize the game through base ball modifications, but their failure was a forgone conclusion, owing to essential differences in the theories of the two games. If they will reflect a moment, we think they will see that base ball has reached a stage only somewhat beyond single wicket cricket, which gave place to the double wicket game, about the year 1800, but it is so many years behind modern cricket, that the year 1900 is likely to arrive before such changes are made, as will place the different departments of the game in balance. Yet the anomoly of the inferior game producing the best exponents exists in America, and is the production of that antagonism between amateurism and professionalism, which seems to be never ending. The difference though social and educational is enormously enchanced by business reasons, which have done base ball little if any good. Cricketers have kept their game above reproach, and though often taunted because they have imported an English game, it will be admitted even by the admirers of America’s “national game” that English cricket has overcome the corruption of the “gambler” and “blackleg,” of past generations and become the keystone of English sport, and this result has been brought about by skilful play unaided by tricks upon players or partiality of umpires.
It is our intention to give some hints to those, who seek pleasure and health from cricket pure and simple, for we are most firm in the belief that good fielding, good bowling, and above all good wicket keeping, now almost a lost art in America will popularize cricket.
No. 1—The “cross bat” illustrated by a cross boy.
“Cricket requires constant practice; and to be a good cricketer, is to be wary, yet bold; strong, yet gentle; self posessed and cautious; firm and manly. There is no game in the world that so teaches a boy to rely upon his resources, and to be ever ready to take advantage of opportunities, as cricket when properly played.”—Wisden
CHAPTER II.
DARK DAYS OF CRICKET.
If American parents will take the time to read what the Reverend James Pycroft says in Chapter VI of his Cricket Field, which we have taken the liberty of quoting in full, it may give them food for thought. It was the good fortune of the writer to read this delightful book early in life, and he has quoted from it whenever he found it possible, and begs to acknowledge numerous obligations, for it has had much bearing upon his own conclusions.
“CHAP. VI.